United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
RECOMMENDATION OF PLACEMENT
TERRENCE G. BERG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Arshawn Hall is serving a 33-month sentence that began on
February 18, 2019. On April 4, 2019, Defendant filed his
first Motion for Recommendation for Residential Reentry
Center Placement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(1)-(2).
ECF No. 62. The Court dismissed Defendant's motion
without prejudice because such motions must be filed 17-19
months prior to a defendant's projected release date. On
May 16, 2019, Defendant filed a second Motion for
Recommendation for Residential Reentry Center Placement. ECF
No. 66. According to Defendant's motion, his projected
release date is now October 9, 2020 which puts this motion
properly within the 17-19-month window. The Government
responded, opposing the motion, on May 24, 2019. ECF No. 68.
Defendant filed a “Motion to Compel” on July 19,
2019, that appears to request a response to the Motion for
Recommendation. ECF No. 70.
seeks the Court's recommendation that, beginning in
October 2019, he serve six months in a residential reentry
center (RRC) followed by six months of home confinement. The
Government contends that Defendant has not shown that he is
eligible to receive the Court's recommendation of this
placement for the final 12 months of his sentence. ECF No. 64
reasons below, the Court will grant Defendant's request
for a recommendation that Defendant serve the final 12 months
of his sentence in an RRC but will make no recommendation for
Second Chance Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3624, allows a federal
prisoner to serve the final months (up to twelve) of their
sentence in an RRC to the extent that placement such a
placement is reasonable. 18 U.S.C. § 3624. This gives
inmates a period of time to re-adjust to society with the
hope of reducing recidivism. United States v. Ahmed,
No. 1:07CR00647, 2017 WL 5166427, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8,
inmate does not have the right to RRC placement.
Instead, the Bureau of Prisons decides whether to permit a
prisoner to serve the final months of their sentence in an
RRC on an “individual basis, ” using five factors
listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b). See Brown v.
Shartle, No. 4:10CV1000, 2010 WL 2697052, at *2 (N.D.
Ohio July 6, 2010). Lovett v. Hogsten, No. 09-5605,
2009 WL 5851205, at *1 (6th Cir. Dec. 29, 2009). Demis v.
Sniezek, 558 F.3d 508, 514 (6th Cir. 2009). The
Court's recommendation is one of those five factors. 18
U.S.C. § 3621(b)(4)(B).
consider an inmate's activity and behavior during their
prison sentences when determining the propriety of an RRC
placement recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons, including
the Defendant's record of participation in various
classes and programs. United States v. Ahmed, No.
1:07CR00647, 2017 WL 51664 27, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8,
2017); United States v. Collins, No.
2:15-cr-00176-7, 2018 WL 1157508, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 5,
2018); United States v. Bartels, No. 12-CR-20072,
2016 WL 6956796, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 29, 2016).
Additionally, the court in Ahmed found that the
government's failure to mention the Defendant's
exemplary prison record indicated the weakness in their
opposition to RRC placement. 2017 WL 51664 27, at *2.
Defendant's case, the Court finds that placement in an
RRC for the final 12 months of Defendant's sentence is
appropriate. The Government argues against this
recommendation on the ground that Defendant was not
sufficiently remorseful for his crime and compliant with
post-conviction forfeiture. But, as outlined above, the
primary factor used to determine whether placement in an RRC
is appropriate is good behavior during incarceration. The
defendant's clean record while in prison and upcoming
completion of a drug rehabilitation program indicate that
Defendant should be eligible for this re-entry placement that
will assist him in becoming a productive member of society,
and not a risk of recidivist conduct.
statute authorizes home confinement for “the shorter of
10 percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner
or 6 months.” 18 U.S.C. § 3624(c)(2)
(emphasis added). Because Defendant's sentence was 33
months, the statute authorizes no more than 3.3 months of
home confinement, not the 6 months Defendant requests.
Defendant has demonstrated that the Court's
recommendation for RRC placement is appropriate. As for home
confinement, the Court does not oppose Defendant's
request but will leave the decision about Defendant's
eligibility up to the Bureau of Prisons, which will be in the
best position to determine whether Defendant's adjustment
to placement in the RRC demonstrates his suitability for home
confinement. The Court therefore grants Defendant's
motion only in part.
has also requested that the Court order the Bureau of Prisons
to complete the individualized assessment that the Bureau is
statutorily required to complete. ECF No. 66 PageID.325; 18
U.S.C. § 3624(c)(6)(B). Defendant has not provided any
evidence that the Bureau has failed to comply with its
statutory duties. Therefore, the Court will not grant such
relief at this time.
foregoing reasons, Defendant's Motion for Recommendation
of Residential Reentry Center Placement is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. The Court hereby
RECOMMENDS that Defendant serve the final 12
months of his sentence in a Residential Reentry Center, with
placement at the discretion of the Bureau of Prisons.
Defendant's Motion to Compel (ECF No. 70) is
DENIED AS MOOT.